One thing that has always bothered people about the World Economic Forum (WEF) is how aesthetically disagreeable it can be. Its style seems deliberately outre. Why does Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s impresario and MC, dress up like a cultic high priest? Why does Yuval Noah Harari – the organisation’s court philosopher – make slightly gleeful dismissals of the idea of human rights? “Take a human, cut him open, look inside. You find the blood, you find the heart, and the lungs and the kidneys – but you don’t find any rights.”
Why this dogged insistence on giving people the creeps? Fundamentally it’s an affectation. The showy amoralism of the WEF is in fact a personal branding exercise, one that arose in response to the first real stirrings against its worldview in the middle of the last decade.
These conflicts after 2016 have been cast in a certain way – not least by Davos itself. What ‘populism’ was objecting to, it was said, was economic and technological modernity. The world was being ironed flat by a ruthless process of economic optimisation that had begun in the 1980s, one in which all the old social institutions that might inhibit the free-flow of capital were to be swept away. What populism meant, then, was a romantic but essentially doomed revolt by those who had been squeezed out.
Armed with this idea, the WEF and its extended class of hangers-on have worked up a kind of equal and opposite anti-romanticism: amoral, bloodless and smirkingly technocratic. If populism represented the past, then the WEF represented the future. One aspect of this is an affected elitism: even the WEF’s website now makes a wry reference to its reputation as a clubhouse for ‘distant elites’.
More significantly, this personal branding allows the WEF and the orthodoxy it represents to take up the mantle of pragmatism, realism and modernity. Even the wobblier parts of this worldview, like mass migration or degrowth economics, could now be cast as simple historical inevitabilities, part of a general trend of bloodless rationalisation all over the world. These things were inexorable and therefore unanswerable; in this the WEF was only the bearer of bad news for the populists. Hence Schwab’s space-age getup.
Opponents of this worldview have been strangely willing to take Davos at its own conceit. Many are content to play the role cast for them: doomed rebels of the ‘heart’ against the unfeeling ‘head’.
And a conceit it is. Scratch a Davos attendee and you’ll find a gooey moralism and a generalised fear of any kind of material change.
For one, the WEF has never met a new technology that it likes. Davos is only beginning to recover from the rise of the internet, which decentralises information and so acts as a solvent to consensus. The average ‘left-behind’ white proletariat in Brandenburg, or Hénin-Beaumont, or West Bromwich has eagerly seized on the internet as a means of political communication; he or she wields it with much more savvy than, say, Angela Merkel. To people like the latter the internet is only sinister; what it puts at stake is not merely a particular consensus, but the very concept of truth itself. It’s always been the Davos line, then, that the internet must be bowdlerised in order to rebuild old solidarities.
Artificial Intelligence, too, is simply another subversive element to gut. Again, new technology is only something that’s allowed insofar as it shores up reigning social structures. What the WEF’s reaction to AI represents isn’t peevish regulationism but downright alarmism – one that draws heavily on the apocalyptic predictions of Eliezer Yudkowsky and the Effective Altruists. Sure enough, the topline recommendations from this year’s conference were for governments and the private sector to put “ethics and responsibility”, not commercial application, at the “forefront” of their AI policies. AI is something that really does threaten to dissolve the old certainties, economic and otherwise; but it’s Davos that’s leading the charge against it.
Think back also to one of the WEF’s more menacing slogans: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” The accompanying essay imagines a future society in which all modern conveniences are shared. But this is just another kind of atavism. The clamour for shared canteens, group constitutionals and mandatory kumbayas isn’t new; it was the stock-in-trade of the romantic and agrarian communal experiments of the 19th century – like the barracks-cum-school Phalanstère of Charles Fourier. These kinds of social wheezes are, above all, a reaction against the anomie of modern life; the objective here is to rebuild solidarities that industrial capitalism has destroyed. Every vision of society offered by the WEF defaults to this same crude Fourierism: Ida Auken’s essay; Stakeholder Capitalism; The Great Reset (2020). It takes a lot of nerve, then, for Davos to accuse its populist opponents of harkening back to some sort of frumpy communitarianism.
And whatever Noah Harari may pretend, the Davos worldview is one that’s steeped in the language of universal human rights. Despite the conceit of bloodless rationalisation, during the pandemic Davos never questioned the idea that all human lives – no matter how many years were left to them – were equally valuable, and so must be protected with a Lockdown that collapsed global trade overnight. The old concerns about interconnected ‘just-in-time’ supply chains were dropped in an instant. Nor is mass migration ever subject to any kind of cold accounting at Davos. Third World immigration does not add to Western exchequers, but for the WEF that is beside the point. For Davos this isn’t about cheap labour (its proposals never include simple Gulf monarchy-style work permits) but the universal brotherhood of man; a maximisation of total global welfare for which Western taxpayers are obliged to foot the bill.
What Davos’ affected amoralism occludes, then, is that this worldview doesn’t represent an unfeeling new modernity, but rather an egalitarian moral project which is anti-modern in its assumptions. So when Davos plays the card of technocracy and thin-lipped realism, its opponents should not take it at its word. Because what we see from Davos isn’t “All that is solid melt[ing] into air”, but the search for a deadening new solidity.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“ Kemi Badenoch said that it was “no time for a reality TV star””
As opposed to the party that brought you lockdowns, covid “vaccines”, the biggest lie in history. OK Kemi. Pull the other one.
Says the gaptoothed Nigerian WEF Young Leadership acolyte.
From Churchill to that.
I have my doubts about Farage and Tice but this is good news if the sheeple are starting to wake up.
You really summed her up perfectly in four words:
“From Churchill to that.”
“Farage is weaker on being a “divisive figure”, his closeness to Donald Trump and whether the party has the intellectual depth to actually form a government.”
LMFAO what you mean like the “intellectual depth” of the current government, or the May/Johnson/Sunak adminstrations? Perhaps you have to go back to Blair and Cameron son of Blair to find intellectual depth, employed in destroying our nation.
What did Sunak actually believe in, apart from Technocracy and CBDCs. He was a spineless little cretin.
Money.
Cameron, intellectual skill?! You gotta be joking.
Yeah, perhaps not. He carried on where Blair left off. Maybe he was just a useful idiot.
Well c’mon, be fair everybody has intellectual skill – some like Cameron just not much.
Blair’s intellectual depth was Campbell.
I think Trump is a positive thing for America, and I suspect he has now sussed what an a***hole Farage is and will distance himself from him.
I agree Trump is positive. Safe bet that Farage would be better than Starmer, though that’s a low bar.
No safe bets where Farage is concerned. He’s betrayed so many already
Trump isn’t a divisive figure, he is a disruptor. Good.
The division credited to him occurred before him, particularly during the reign of His Eminence St Barry of Obama and years of poison dripping out of the Democrat slander machine, and was what created the Trump MAGA movement.
Farage isn’t divisive, that division has been created by successive Governments since the war, first along class lines now ethnic multi-culti lines. “Diversity” means apart, different, unlike.
Farage, like Trump is a creation of that, but I don’t think he is a disruptor – pity.
Yes I generally agree. Politics is about differences of opinion, sometimes strong. We need proper opposition, not a Uniparty.
I would say Trump is more “divisive” than Farage because he’s less polished and DGAF in his manner and attitude. I would also say that Farage played a big part in the “disruption” that was the Brexit referendum.
Trump 2.0 has been better than 1.0, though this is concerning: Hey, At Least We Bombed Somebody – Ann Coulter
Where Trump scores over Farage is that the US seems to have much more vigorous opposition to state overreach.
“Farage comes out on top on 28%. Keir Starmer is 1% behind”
Is that really something to boast about, the most hated PM only one point behind!
Some good news here too, though it does just say ”delay”, not ”cancel”;
”The Sentencing Council is to delay the introduction of its two-tier guidance after being threatened with emergency legislation to block it by the Government.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/31/sentencing-council-suspends-two-tier-guidelines-backlash/
But if that’s the case, does that mean this no longer applies?
”Transgender and ethnic minority people are being given priority for bail under new guidelines drawn up by the Ministry of Justice.
Judges and magistrates are being told to prioritise those groups because they may be at ‘disproportionately higher risk’ if they are held in custody.
The guidelines asks judges to consider that some defendants may have experienced trauma through racism and discrimination.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14553135/ethnic-minority-suspects-priority-bail.html
He just scrapes past Starmer. Says it all.
What are we to make of those who complain about Reform and Farage.
They are not satisfied that a party relaunched in the face of opposition by the elites and MSM has broken through the support levels of the old parties in under a year.
They query or condemn Farage because he does not exclusively champion their pet issue or does not use language they want – divisive, vote losing language and likely illegal in today’s authoritarian Britain.
Are they elite party agents. Are they determined to be defeated in glory. They have certainly not thought through the way to victory.
For me the jury is out and I will take stock when I need to – at the next General Election. They probably deserve a chance but have not always inspired my confidence. Bear in mind that those of us who are on the political right have been burned and betrayed by Tories who talk a good fight. I do not doubt for a minute your sincerity nor the sincerity of many at grass roots level.
Regarding the “divisive, vote losing language” – Trump got away with it. But perhaps the US is different.
Nonsense. We were all foolish enough to believe in Farage and Reform, even though he had “previous” in destroying two other successful “patriot parties” he set up, until he clearly showed his hand:
He’s going to pull another “Bait & Switch”, called Tommy Robinson “scum” while feigning concern for British children, allowed Yet Another Pakistani Muslim to buy the Reform party, rewrite its rules to allow the Muslim to be elected as Reform party leader in the future by flooding the party with new Muslim members, unjustly “vetted” and banned true patriots for criticising the Invading Muslim Army or Pakistani Muslim Child Rapists, and supported the Muslim and two female “plants” in falsely accusing Rupert Lowe for being too popular with the public.
A Vote for Reform is a Vote for the Caliphate.
My question is can he head a team rather than antagonise anyone who tries to work with him?
That would be a resounding NO. Take a look at Andrew Eborn’s interview of the journalist Martin Jay
https://youtu.be/KFYghpe5OpQ?feature=shared
MJ knows Farage well, and has done for years and even appears to have a bit of a soft spot for him but if even he condemns the man…… Farage is incapable of working with anyone who may prove to be cleverer or more popular that he is, he has to be top dog at all times. You cannot put together a decent team with an attitude like that. The Rupert Lowe saga reveals that it is impossible to sort things out with Farage behind closed doors and RL has been forced to go public. Rupert Lowe’s fate was sealed the moment that Elon Musk declared that he would make a better leader of Reform than Farage and that the latter just wasn’t up to the job. I wonder what Trump thinks of him now? It would be very interesting to know
If you’d had direct experience of working for Reform, you wouldn’t have to ask that question. Yusuf & Farage are also fans of the WEF so beware sheep in wolves’ clothing
No sane person can be fan of the WEF,,,it is run by lunatics.
I think it’s likely Reform will get more votes than any other party at the next general election but if they finish second in a large number of constituencies they might not be the largest party in the next parliament. Even if Reform are the largest party Farage’s chances of becoming the next PM could be pretty slim if the other parties form an “anti populist” coalition as has happened in Germany and Austria.
Given how low the turnout was at the last election Reform needs to put a huge amount of effort into convincing the millions of people that are totally disillusioned with politics/the uniparty that they are sufficiently different that it’s worth voting for them, even if people have never voted before/not voted for a long time.
I cancelled my Reform membership this morning. Letter below …
Can you please cancel my membership.
I believe Nigel Farage to be the most effective political figure since Margaret Thatcher.
So why the resignation? Two reasons.
1. We now have 109 thousand illegal immigrants, the majority of whom are military age Muslim men. By the time of the next election this figure will multiply many times.
2. Rupert Lowe rightly stated they must be detained and deported. Mr Farage has rejected this, further adding he can’t confront Islam. For no reason I can justify, he appointed a Muslim CEO to Reform. I don’t hate Muslims, but Islam, by definition, means ‘submission’. I can no longer be party to a movement led by a Muslim. If this changes, I’ll consider rejoining.
I’d be happy to speak to you further if this helps. I’m sure you’re aware many, if not most of your members feel the same way.
Sincerely
Hats off to you, Neil of Watford, for telling the truth, and backing it up by real action!
Indeed Neil, well said. I resigned from the party a couple of weeks ago – and my goodness don’t they make it difficult! I’ve now put in a Subject Access Request with which they have a month to comply. Since they are now so keen on GDPR and NDAs I thought I’d give them a taste of their own medicine. I’ve also demanded confirmation that their ‘membership’ ticker has been adjusted and my instructions have been followed. I too would be willing to rejoin if Yusuf either resigns or is removed but Farage has proved just how untrustworthy he is too so I’d prefer the ‘party’ to be led by someone else – but of course, since it is still a plc with Farage & Yusuf as the two directors, this seems unlikely. They were supposed to democratise the ‘party’ but merely made it Reform UK (2025) Ltd and as such they don’t have members, they just have subscribers. Weasels the pair of them
Nigel topped the poll, conducted by the French polling company Ipsos, as “best prime minister”, from which Rupert Lowe’s name was excluded, and the article celebrating this was written by Yet Another Muslim, Kamal Ahmed, whose English mother is from Rotherham, World’s First Children’s Capital of Culture (??!!), and Ethnic African Muslim father is from Sudan, one of the countries famous for slaughtering Christians and burning down their churches.
A VOTE FOR REFORM is a VOTE FOR THE CALIPHATE.
Farage is a despicable, dishonourable, lying, egomaniacal, self-serving politician. Surely there is enough information about him now for everyone to realise that, and not vote for any party he and his equally unpleasant co-owner Yusef are involved in. There are other Polls that put Farage at 7% even that is far higher than he should be.
Well what a pity the man is a charlatan and will never cross the finishing line. He’s shown by his treatment of his hitherto greatest asset – Rupert Lowe – that he’s as shallow as a puddle after the sun’s been out for a couple of hours and that he’s incapable of building a team around him. Who on earth would he have in his cabinet? Let’s hope we have some time for an alternative to emerge before the next GE. Ask yourselves why they would want to bring in NDAs for branch officials? What are they trying to hide? I’m sure you’ve seen me post on here previously that I was a branch Treasurer for Reform but I won’t vote for them now whilst Farage & Yusuf are at the helm. I’d rather vote Monster Raving Loony Party or spoil my ballot paper.
Good for you…..it was his behaviour towards Tommy, that damned him, for me.
“Ipsos reveals that when asked who would do a “good job as Prime Minister”, Farage comes out on top on 28%. Keir Starmer is 1% behind,”
Keir Starmer is just 1% behind? That’s not reassuring. Who are these mindless blobs who think Starmer is doing a “good job”?
I despair.
Government employees and SS benefit winners.